I The Dryers also argue that a recent enforcement order issued by the Land <br />2 Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) provides some support <br />3 for their position that the city cannot apply discretionary general track standards <br />4 to the Dreyers' application. LCDC Enforcement Order 17-ENF-001881 <br />5 (Record 3054-72) (Corvallis Order). In the Corvallis Order, LCDC concluded <br />6 that the city erred in applying a PUD overlay zone, with discretionary approval <br />7 standards, to land on its buildable land inventory, and ordered that the city must <br />8 allow the owner to seek development approval without application of the <br />9 discretionary overlay standards. The Corvallis land use code apparently does <br />10 not include a two-track system, such as the City of Eugene's, but required all <br />11 housing development within the overlay zone to comply with discretionary <br />12 overlay standards. Not surprisingly, LCDC concluded that such a single-track <br />13 system is inconsistent with ORS 197.307(4). LCDC discussed, but did not <br />14 resolve, a dispute over whether the proposed development can gain approval <br />15 under clear and objective grading standards that limit cuts and fills on steep <br />16 slopes, noting testimony that the application could be modified to comply with <br />17 the grading standards, and also noting but not resolving arguments regarding <br />18 whether the city could deny the application for noncompliance with the grading <br />19 standards. Record 3070. Given the different single-track/dual-track schemes at <br />20 issue in the Corvallis Order and the present case, and the unresolved issues in <br />21 the Order, we conclude that the Order provides no particular support for the <br />22 Dreyers' arguments under the first contingent cross-assignment of error. <br />Page 23 <br />